Authoritarian practices in new democracies

Despite the rapid spread of democracy in the developing world over the past 25 years, there has been increasing evidence that a significant number of democratic leaders have been adopting authoritarian practices. Such practices include: utilizing devices to bypass legislatures and/or restrict the ability of opposition parties to operate; restricting the political and civil rights of their people; and politicizing the judiciary in their countries. Yet, questions directed at exploring why this happens are only beginning to be addressed. This article seeks to explain why democratic leaders in developing countries use these sorts of authoritarian practices. This article develops a model that suggests that external economic constraints emanating from the global economy compel elected leaders to adopt certain authoritarian practices in order to overcome the limitations they face as a result of these constraints. Specifically, the constraints imposed by capital mobility and conditional lending by the international financial institutions are what force many leaders in developing countries to use authoritarian practices. This study utilizes a comparative approach using two cases, Argentina, and the Philippines. For both countries, the study analyzes a specific incident and offers an explanation regarding why authoritarian practices were employed by the country's leadership.     

The Article 9 Association,Leftist Elites,and the Movement to Save Article 9 of Japan’s Postwar Constitution

Leftist political parties and labor unions that had stood at the forefront of the collective effort to protect Article 9 until the early 1990s have stepped back to some extent as they have shrunk and fragmented. Instead, advocacy groups whose influence is often enhanced by ‘leftist elites’ have now seemed to come more to the fore, thereby raising certain questions: What roles do the leftist elites play in those groups? How are such groups organized? Who exactly are the leftist elites? This article intends to address questions regarding the leftist elites, as well as the organization and development of these advocacy groups, in particular the Article 9 Association.     

A new model for making Aboriginal policy? Evaluating the Kelowna Accord and the promise of multilevel governance in Canada

Government policy‐making affecting Indigenous communities in Canada has often been met with stiff resistance from Indigenous leadership. We examine multilevel governance as an alternate model for Aboriginal policy‐making by examining a particular case study: the process leading up to the 2005 Kelowna Accord. We find that although multilevel governance may have the potential to produce highly desirable outcomes, its emergence seems to depend heavily on political agency. Meaningful and enduring change to Aboriginal policy‐making will therefore likely require significant institutional adjustments to the Canadian federation.     

Same same but different. Die Feldtheorien Fligsteins und Bourdieus und das Potenzial einer wechselseitig informierten Perspektive für die Wirtschaftssoziologie

Field theoretical approaches have become popular within economic sociology. Many even consider the notion of ?field“ a suitable alternative to the hegemonic paradigm of ?embeddedness“. This article outlines the epistemological potential of a field theoretical perspective by systematically comparing the approaches of Neil Fligstein and Pierre Bourdieu. By examining their respective contexts of emergence, their theoretical and methodological references, their research interests and their central concepts, both similarities and differences between the two approaches become visible. The resulting insights allow for a field theoretical and profoundly relational perspective on economic phenomena that might stimulate ongoing debates within economic sociology.     

Rehumanizing Birth and Death in America

THESIS: Despite spending more on medical care than any other country in the world, the United States still boasts some of the worst patient outcomes of any developed nation. This disparity is especially true of how Americans give birth and die.  These natural human transitions have become catastrophically expensive and leave patients and their families traumatized from unnecessary interventions. This article examines the costs and outcomes associated with the medicalization of birth and death and argues that alternatives exist that improve patient outcomes while lowering costs. Access to these alternatives will require changing current regulatory and reimbursement structures and providing trained support staff to help families navigate beginning- and end-of life decisions.